Skip to main content

Full text of "The standard deviation in the weight of white leghorn eggs"

See other formats




E\'AMSDAL£ LIBRW 

WEST VIRGINIA 
RSilY 



^IVC 



■ttvtrv^uv tt9m^» 



■ 



n o » »* 



Restricted 
Circulation Only 




Bulletin 195 



June, 1925 



Agricultural lExperiment Station 

CollriK nf Ayrirulturr, lilrst 13irc(inia Uniurrsttu 

HENRY G. KNIGHT, Director 
Morgantown 



The Standard Deviation in the Weight 
of White Leghorn Eggs 



(Technical) 




BY 
HORACE ATWOOD 



Publications of this Station will be mailed free to any citizen of West Virginia upon 
written application. Address Director of the West Virginia Agricultural Experiment 
Station, MorgantOwn^i W. Va. 



AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF 



FRANK B. TROTTER, A. M., LL. D - President of the University 

GEORGE R. LYMAN, Ph. D Dean of the College of Agriculture 

HENRY G. KNIGHT, Ph. D Director of the Experiment Station 

WALTER "C. SCHNOPP, B. S. Agr Agricultural Editor 

JOHN C. JOHNSTON Chief Clerk 



AGRONOMY 

R. J. Garber, Ph. D. 

Agronomist 
T. E. Odland, M. S. 

Associate Agronomist 
T. C. Mcllvaine, Ph. D.J 

Assistant Agronomist 
K. S. Quisenberry, B. S.*** 

Junior Agronomist 

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY 

E. A. Livesay, M. S.*** 

Animal Husbandman 
Chas. V. Wilson, M. S. 

Assistant Animal Husbandman 
E. C. Stillwell, M. S. 

Assistant Animal Husbandman 
S. S. Wheeler, M. S. 

Junior Animal Husbandman 
R. H. Tuckwiller, B. S. Agr.* 

Assistant Animal Husbandman 

CHEMISTRY 

Henry G. Knight, Ph. D. Chemist 

Chas. E. Weakley, Jr., B. A., 

Assistant Chemist 
T. B. Leith, B. A.** 

Assistant Chemist 
T. J. Cochran, B. S. 

Junior Chemist 

DAIRY HUSBANDRY 

Ernest L. Anthony, M. S. Agr. 

Dairy Husbandman 
H. 0. Henderson, M. S. Agr.*** 

Associate Dairy Husbandman 
Warren Gifford, B. S. Agr. 

Junior Dairy Husbandman 
G. M. Trout, M. S. 

Assistant in Dairy Husbandry 

ENTOMOLOGY 

L. M. Peairs, M. S. Entomologist 

W. E. Rumsey, B. S.** 

Assistant Entomologist 



FARM ECONOMICS 

A. J. Dadisman, Ph. D. 

Farm Economist 
Paul A. Eke, Ph. D. 

Junior Farm Economist 
F. D. Cornell, M. S. 

Junior Farm Mechanician 
W. W. Armentrout, B. S. 

Junior Farm Economist 

HORTICULTURE 

M. J. Dorsey, Ph. D. 

Horticulturist 
H. L. Crane, M. S. Agr. 

Associate Horticulturist 
H. E. Knowlton, Ph. D. 

Associate Horticulturist 
K. C. Westover, M. S. Agr.*** 

Assistant Horticulturist 
Ernest Angelo, B. S. Agr. 

Junior Horticulturist 
L. F. Sutton, B. S. Agr.f 

Assistant Horticulturist 
Troy M. Currence, B. S. Agr. 

Assistant in Horticulture 
Lewis G. Stark, B. S. Agr. 

Assistant in Horticulture 

PLANT PATHOLOGY 

N. J. Giddings, Ph. D. 

Plant Pathologist 
Anthony Berg, B. S. 

Assistant Plant Pathologist 
L. H. Leonian, Ph. D. 

Assistant Plant Pathologist 
E. C. Sherwood, M. S. 

Assistant Plant Pathologist 

POULTRY HUSBANDRY 

Horace Atwood, M. S. Agr. 

Poultry Husbandman 

SOILS 

E. P. Deatrick, Ph. D. 

Associate Soil Technologist 



•In co-operation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 

**In co-operation with the State Department of Agriculture, Chareston, W. Va. 

***0n leave of absence. 

tin charge of the Reymann Memorial Farms, Wardensville, W. Va. 

tin charge of the Maggie Sub-Station, Maggie, W. Va. 



THE STANDARD DEVIATION IN THE 

WEIQHT OF WHITE LEQHORISI 

EQGS 

The eggs laid by a hen vary in weight. Some of them are 
considerably heavier or lighter and some only slightly heavier, 
or lighter, than the mean or agerage weight. Table II shows the 
weight of the eggs laid by hen No. 315 during each month of 
her second laying year. The column to the left indicates the 
weights of the eggs, and the tally marks in the columns headed 
by the names of the months indicate the number of eggs laic 
during each month, arranged according to their weight. Fo.' 
example, in March this hen laid 3 eggs falling in the 53.5 gram 
class; 2 eggs in the 54.5 gram class, and so on. The heavy hori- 
zontal line is used to indicate approximately the mean eg<r^ 
weight for the year which lies between 56.5 and 57.5 grams. 
From this line of mean weight the eggs are dispersed or scat- 
tered more or less widely. 

TABLE I. — Calculating the Standard Deviation of the Weigh": 
of Eggs Laid by Hen 315 as Shown by Table II. 



Weight 
of Eggs 
in Grains 


Number 

of 

Eggs 


Product of Num- 
ber of Eggs Mul- 
tiplied by 
! Weight 


Sq 
We 
by 


uare of the 
ght Multiplied 

the Number 

of Eggs 


50.5 


1 


50.5 






2550. 


51.5 


1 


51.5 






2652. 


52.5 


3 


157.5 






8268. 


53.5 


13 


695.5 






37209. 


54.5 


21 


1144.5 






62375. 


55.5 


27 


1498.5 






83167. 


56.5 


31 


1751.5 






98959. 


57.5 


30 


j 1725.0 






99187. 


58.5 


27 


1579.5 






92400. 


59.5 


25 


1487.5 






88506. 


60.5 


8 


1 484.0 






29282. 


61.5 


6 


369.0 






22693. 


62.5 


4 


250.0 






15625. 


Total 


197 


1 11244.5 


642873. 



11244.5-^197 = 57.079, the mean weight of the eggs for the year. The square of 
57 .079 m ultipHed by 197 equals 641827. 642873 — 64182'7 = 1 046. 1046-^197 = 5.309 
V .1.309 = 2.30, the standard deviation sought. 



W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION 



(Bulletin 11*5 



TABLE II. — Frequency Chart Showing Distribution of Eggs Dur- 
ing the Year, Dec. 1921-Nov. 1922, Laid by Bird 315, 
Deviation in Weight of Eggs, Mean Weight, and Stand- 
ard Deviation. 



2 9,? ' 


Dcc(i9ai) 


J>in(i«2] 


Feb 


MCN 


rtPB 


M«Y 


JoriE 


July 


flue 


5c<n- 


Oct 


(Mov 


too 5 


30S 
3 / S 

3as 

33S 




























35 3 
365 
37 S 
3S5 
33. -i 




























f05 

1 / S 

44fi 




























■^56 
463 

483 
4 9.5 




























505 
5 /5 
52S 






1 


lit 

II 


/ 


/ 

IH1 1 


II 

itni 
III 


/ 
/ 

III 

nil 


1 

II 


1 


/ 




/ 
1 

3 
13 
Zl 


555 
5 rt.«; 






1 


III 

U41 II 


III 

Ltn 


IMIII 
II 


1411 1 

II 


III 
III 


1 

1 


1 

mil 


II 
III 


/ 


2.7 

,1/ 


S 73 

585 

5 9n 






1 


II 
III 


/III 
.III 
IM1 


III 
III 

II 


III 
II 


nil 
nil 

/ 


Ml nil 

(Mil 

II 


1 

III 
unii 


III 
II 
// 


/ 
/ 


27 

2 5 


6 OS 
6 13 
6 Z5 
6 15 
6 1 .'i 








1 


/ 
/ 








II 

1 


III 


/ 
III 
1 


III 

1 


a 

6 
4 


6 55 
66 5 
6 75 
6SS 
695 


Bird 


Nn 3 IK 
























7o5 
r / 5 
7 Z5 
735 
74 5 




^Et&tfT or 
■,„p /Jew 




179 6m, 


Z.3 o«A 


.. 
















75 5 

76 5 
77S 
78 5 




























OF Esos 






3 


Zl 


2J 


21 


Z4 


Z4 


Z5 


25 


IS 


IZ 


IS 7 



Table III shows the weights of the eggs laid by hen No. 355 
during her second laying season. By comparing Tables II and 
III it becomes evident that the Q^g weights are more widely 
scattered in the latter instance. 

Standard Deviation 



The extent of the scattering or dispersion is measured byi 
the standard deviation which takes into consideration the; 
amount of departure of each variate, (by "variate" is meant one 
of the individuals measured or weighed) as based on the meanj 
or the arithmetical average of all of them. In this publication 
the standard deviations have been calculated by means of the 



June. 1925) 



DEVIATION IN WEIGHT OF EGGS 



TABLE III. — Frequency Chart Showing Distribution of Eggs 
During the Year, Dec. 1921-Nov. 1922, Laid by Bird 355, 
Deviation in Weight of Eggs, Mean Weight, and Stand- 
ard Deviation. 



WC<«MT 




























QKArnt 


OtcfiSiil 


Jiin/lSm, 


Fna 


MCH 


Apr. 


n^r 


T»Ni 


Jiu-Y 


/w«. 


*5£P^ 


Oct 


.tto<^ 




ra-! 




























iO£ 




























316 




























32£ 




























JA5 




























J^/i 




























J35 




























J&5 




























OW 




























306 




























Y^.^ 




























-Hli 




























4U 




























■fZS 




























43J 




























.arf/i 




























455 




























466 




























<»75 




























'(&6 




























4a -! 




























soj 




























S/5 








1 






II 












J 


52 5 














1 


1 




1 


1 




f 


SI 5 












1 


II 












J 


04J> 








II 


1 


nil 


1 


III! 




1 


1 




M 


555 








II 




1 


utt 


1 








9 


as 






II 


1 


uu 


Ufl 


III 




III 


II 




Zl 


57i 




II 


nil 


1 


II 


/I 


1 


II 


nil 


1 


IS 


Sfl.-i 


1 


III 


III 


uti 


II 


III 


II 


III 


1 


1 


P4 


.S.9.S 






II 


nil 




III 


II 


III 


II 


IMI 


// 


23 


60s 






1 


III 


II 


1 


1 




III 


III 


II 


/ 


n 


6'S 




1 




1 


1 


II 




1 


III 


II 


II 


II 


IS 


6ZS 




II 


1 


/ 






1 




1 




1 


II 


a 


655 








1 




1 






1 




/ 


1 


s 


64.'i 




1 


1 












1 


1 




Ml 


9 


655 










1 










1 






z 


665 




























6 75 


I 






1 
















J 


6as 


























635 






5S 






















IPS 


ftai^ 


VciiHT Of 


£003 sa. 


ree ev/tn 


1 
















1 


lis 


SrnnoA 


\io PEvtm 


/<=/» /^ w 


««t3 26 


GRnntc. 


















135 




























745 




























755 




























755 




























77^ 




























785 




























Nur,«,^ 




























OF £o« 




■4 


-? 


la 


21 


20 


Zl 


Zl 


16 


19 


zo 


IS 


179 



following simple formula:* 
Standard deviation =^ - 



in which "2m-" repre- 



:m- — na- 
n 
sents the sum of the squares of the independent measures or 
variates, "n" the number of measures or variates and "a" their 
arithmetical average or mean value. 

For the purpose of illustrating the method of calculating 
the standard deviation in the weight of eggs the record of hen 
315 is taken and the calculation presented in Table I, page 3, in 
full. 

In the same way the standard deviation for hen 355 (Table 
III) has been found to be 3.26. The two values 2.30 and 3.26 en- 
ables one to compare the relative variability in the weight of the 



*Phillips, Monthly Woathej Review, March, 192*2, p. 36. 



fi W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 195 

eggs laid by hens 315 and 355, and as it is desirable to secure 
eggs that are uniform in weight this information may be of im- 
portance in connection with the selection of females when 
breeding for eggs of more uniform size. 

The smaller the standard deviation the more closely do 
the eggs cluster about the mean weight, or in other words, the 
more uniform they are, taken as a whole. 

Fowls Employed 

The fowls employed in this work were standard bred Single 
Comb White Leghorns. Prior to the beginning of this experi- 
ment this strain of fowls had not been trapped or bred for egg- 
production. The fowls were in six flocks designated as A, B,, 
C, D, E, and F. Each female in A had one or more full sisters 
in flock B and vice versa. Likewise C and D were sisters and E 
and F were sisters. Flocks A, C, and E were well fed while 
young while flocks, B, D, and F were fed rations low in protein 
and ash constituents so that the increase in live weight was 
slow. After laying began all six flocks were fed uniformly on 
a well balanced laying ration. 

The data used in this discussion cover three years' of pro- 
duction for A and B, two years' for C and D, and one year's pro- 
duction for E and F. The laying year in all cases began Decem- 
ber 1 and ended November 30. All eggs were weighed the 
day following that on which they were laid, and in this discus- 
sion double yolked eggs and those abnormally small were disre- 
garded. Most of the eggs were weighed on a chainomatic bal- 
ance, and the weights were recorded to one one-hundredth of a 
gram. 

Standard Deviation as Influenced by the Age 
of the Fowl 

Tables IV to IX, inclusive, give the standard deviations in the 
weight of the eggs laid by the various females in each flock. 

The deviation varied from a maximum of 6.14±.24 in the 
case of bird 327 the first year to a minimum of 1.75±.08 in the 
case of bird 324 during the third year (See Table IV.) 

There was no significant difference between the means for 
the second and third years, but the mean standard deviation for 
the first year was greater than during the later years. To illus- 
trate the reason for this greater deviation during the pullet year. 
Table V is presented showing a typical pullet record. 



June, 1!)25) DEVIATION IN WEIGHT OF EGGS 7 

TABLE IV. — Flock A (Well Fed While Young). 



Band No. 
of Bird 



First 
Year 



Standard Deviation 

Second 
Year 



Unweighed 
Mean 



3.53±.13* 



2.61±.08 



Third 
Year 





801 


1 3.61±.14 


2.74±.10 


2.23±.09; 




302 


1 3.58±.12 


1.96±.07 


2.38±.08 




308 


1 2.06±.13 


2.22±.08 


2.23±.10 




309 


i 4.31:t.l5 


2.35±.10 


3.22±.14 




311 


1 3.84 ±.14 


1.99±.'07 


2.16±.09 




313 


1 3.47±.13 


3.26±.12 


1.78±.09 




315 


1 4.65±.17 


2.30±.08 


3.33±.13 




320 


1 2.74±.12 


2.56±.12 


3.43±.18 




322 


2.80±.10 


2.41±.09 


2.32±.09 




324 


2.67±.10 


2.25±.09. 


1.75±.08 




325 


3.24±.12 


2.49±.10 


2.39±.10 




326 


3.30±.14 


4.25±.17 


3.02±.12 




327 


6.14±.24 


3.28±.12 


2.57±.09 




330 


3.19±.17 


2.24±:.09 


2.96±.12 




331 


2.82±.10 


1.72±.08 


2.12±.09 




332 


' 5.11±.18 


2.71±.ll 


2.35±.09 




333 


2.96±.12 


3.18±.15 


2.86±.13 




336 


1 2.86±.12 


1.99+.08 


3.66±.15 




342 


1 2.57±.09 


2.53±.09 


3.04±.12 




347 


1 4.12±.17 


2.82±.12 


2.58±.1C) 




351 


i 3.17±.14 


3.12±.ll 


3.60±.14 




355 


1 3.43±.13 


3.26±.12 


4.02±.15 




356 


1 4.63+.18 


2.47±.09 


2.46±j09 



2.72±.05 



♦The probable error of the unweighed means in this and following tables has been 
calculated from the formula: -6745 ■ S D. considering each standard deviation as a variate. 



/n 



By comparing Tables II, III, and V one may see that the dis- 
tribution of egg weight is quite different during the first year 
of production or pullet year as compared with that of later 
years. With pullets the first eggs laid are small and there is a 
gradual and fairly regular increase in weight to the close of the 
year, but with mature hens the eggs laid in winter and spring- 
are relatively large, with a gradual decrease to the minimum 
weight in summer and then an increase toward fall. This con- 
dition tends to throw the distribution closer to the mean in the 
case of the mature fowls. 

Table VI shows the standard deviations of the weights of 
the eggs laid by flock B during the three years of the test. 

The results as shown in Table VI agree with the results 
shown in Table IV in that the mean standard deviation for the 



W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION 



(Bulletin 195 



TABLE V. — Frequency Chart Showing Distribution of Eggs 
During the Year, Dec. 1920-Nov. 1921, Laid by Bird 305, 
Deviation in Weight of Eggs, Mean Weight, and Stand- 
ard Deviation. 



29 S 


OtcOOic 


jAn(/9i/J 


F£B 


ricH 


Apk 


May 


Ju/^E 


July 


Aug. 


5e(»T. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


or €0^3 


30S 

3/. 3 

SZ.€ 
.T4 5 




























35.5 
J (5.5 
SIS 
S&S 
30.3 




























4XS 
■14 5 






1 
1 
III 

1 


II 
II 


II 








1 








1 
1 
3 
4 

4- 


•15.5 
A6.5 
47.5 






1 

1 
1 


IHI 

miiii 
II 


nil 
III 
mi 

UtI/ll 


II 
III 

imm 

mi 


III 
II 

un 


UtII 
Mil 


1 


/ 






IZ 
IB 
30 


49. S 










1 


1 


Ufl 


nil 


III 


II 






16 


50.5 
51.5 
SZ5 
5i5 
545 










II 




imi 

1 
'1 


III 
1 


III 
nil 

II 

nil 

1 


Ufl 
III 
III 
II 
III 


Ill 
II 
1 

nil 




21 

"^ i 
9 1 
S i 
8 


SS.S 
56.5 
5 75 
583 
S9.X 




















1 


1 

/ 




z 
1 1 


60S 
ai.6 

IJJ5 
64S 


























1 


ess 

66S 
075 
(585 
59.1 


fiian 


Va. JOS 
























705^ 
7/5 
T?5 
7J.5 
74^ 




We.ionT c 


• Eeoa 1 


B.9SO O* 


'97 GH'ir, 


















735 
765 
775 
745 




























OF Csas 






9 


Z4 


25 


2T 


if 


20 


IB 


Zti 


u 




/ao 



first year was greater than that of succeeding years. There was 
no significant difference in the fhean deviations for the second 
year and the third year, and there was no significant difference 
in the means for flock A as compared with flock B, showing 
that the poor ration fed the chickens in flock B had no measur- 
able effect upon the standard deviation in the e.g^ weight. 



Tables VII and VIII show the standard deviation in the 
weight of the eggs laid by pens C and D. 



June, 1925) DEVIATION IN WEIGHT OF EGGS 

TABLE VI.— Flock B (Poorly Fed While Young), 



"'■ ' ■" 


Stan< 


Jard Deviation 


" 


Band No. 








1 


of Bird 


First 




Second 


1 Third 




Year 




Year 


! Year 


803 


3.17±.16 




3.82±.15 1 


3.24±.14 


304 


2.75±.12 




2.44±.09 ' 


2.51±.12 


305 


2.97±.ll 




2.37it.l0 


2. 37+. 10 


306 


5.49±.19 




3.18 + .12 


3.78±.20 


312 


2.74±.14 




3.75±.19 


3.45±.18 


314 


3.52±.14 




1.71±.07 


1.76±.08 


316 1 


4.39±.18 




2.60±.09 


3.10±.12 


319 


4.27±.16 




2.34±.09 1 


2.70±.ll 


323 


3.98±.14 




2.68±.10 


2. 69+. 11 


329 ! 


2.30±.ll 


2.49±.10 


3.35 + .14 


334 


2.35±.10 


2.67±.ll 


2.44 + .09 


335 


2.69±.12 


2.65±.10 


2.83 + .11 


337 1 


5.57±.27 ! 


2.97±.12 


2.79 + .11 


338 1 


2.32±.ll 1 


2.38±.10 


2.37 + .09 


340 


2.89±.16 1 


3.22±.12 


2.90+.11 


341 


3.75±.17 1 


2.92±.10 


2.74+.10 


345 


3.03±.13 ! 


2.27±.08 


2.14+.08 


348 


3.18+.17 1 


2.40 + .10 


2.32 + .13 


350 


3.54+.20 1 


2.54±.ll 


2.89+.11 


252 


3.15±.13 


2.64±.10 


2.05+.09 


354 1 


2.66±.ll 


2.55±.10 


2.87+.12 


Un weighed | 








Mean | 


3.36±.13 


2.69±.07 


2.72+.07 


TABLE VII 


. Flock C (Well Fed Whil 


e Young). 




Standard Deviation 


Band No. 










of Bird 


First 






Second 




Year 






Year 


401 


4.28±.17 






2.58+.10 


402 


3.90 + .15 






3.01+.11 


40:;; 


4.02±.17 






2.82 + .11 


404 


3.48±.16 






2.73 + .11 


406 


3.26±.15 


1 


2.31+.09 


407 


3.69±.16 


i 


2.40+.09 


409 


5.57±.21 


1 


3.11+.13 


411 


4.54+. 21 




2.47+.10 


415 


2.96+.12 




2.46+.10 


419 


2.59±.10 


1 


2.75+.11 


420 


3.24±.12 




2.45+.11 


421 


2.42±.09 


1 


1.81+.07 


422 


3.28±.17 


1 


2.68 + .14 


424 


4.87±.16 


1 


2.57±.09 


428 


2.84±.12 


1 


3.14+.11 


431 


3.39±.14 


I 


2.30+.09 


432 


3.04±.12 


1 


3.39+.13 


434 


2.56±.10 




2.54+.11 


435 


3.97±.13 




2.38+.08 


Un weighed 




1 




Mean 


3.57±.13 


1 


2.62+.05 



10 



W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION 



(Bulletin 195 



TABLE VIII.— Flock D (Poorly Fed While Young). 





Standard Deviation 


Band No. 






of Bird 


First 


Year 




Year 


Second 


405 


3.84±.19 


3.43±:.14 


408 


4.31+.18 


3.74+.16 


410 


3.39±.14 


3.46±.14 


413 


4.31±.20 


2.09±.ll 


416 


2.54±.ll 


2.23±.08 


418 


2.72±.ll 


2.16±.08 


423 


3.75±.16 


2.40±.10 


425 


3.53±.13 


3.52±.16 


426 


3.17±.14 


2.43±.09 


427 


2.99±.ll 


2.37±.09 


429 


2.07±.ll 


2.45±.10 


436 


3.15±.12 


3.15±.10 


437 


4.54±.19 


3.00±.13 


438 


3.23±.13 


2.24±.14 


439 


2.90±.10 


2.26±.09 


440 


3.27±.15 


3.40±.15 


441 


3.12±.14 


2.48±.09 


442 


1 3.36±.15 


3.11±.12 


443 


4.55±.28 


3.06±.12 


Un weighed 


1 1 


Mean 


3.41+.10 1 2.73±.12 



Comparing the unweighed means for flocks C and D for the 
first and second years respectively it is seen that there is no sig- 
nificant difference due to the rations fed prior to maturity. The 
results with C and D agree with the results derived from flocks 
A and B in that the standard deviations for the first year were 
greater than for the second. 

Table IX gives the standard deviation in the weight of the 
eggs laid byf flocks E and F. 



Table IX shows that the unweighed mean standard devia- 
tion for Flock E was slightly greater than for Flock F, and in this 
connection it is interesting to bring together the means for the 
six flocks. This has been done in Table X. 



June, 1925) 



DEVIATION IN WEIGHT OF EGGS 



11 



TABLE IX. — Standard Deviation in the Weight of Eggs Laid by 
Flock E (Well Fed While Young), and Flock F (Poorly 
Fed While Young). 



Flock 


E 


Flock F 


Band No. 


First 


Band No. 


First 


of Bird 


Year 


of Bird 


Year 


500 


2.62±.10 


530 


2.71±.09 


501 


2.86±.12 


551 


2.95±.12 


502 


2.75+.11 


1 552 


2.75 + .10 


503 


3.29±.14 


553 


2.83±.ll 


504 


3.03±.H 


554 


1.52it.09 


506 


3.64±.13 


555 


3.64±.14 


507 


2.78±.10 


557 


2.69±.12 


508 


2.98±.14 


558 


2.48±.09 


510 


3.07±.13 


559 


3.47±.12 


511 


2.63+.10 


560 


3.19±.13 


512 


3.32+.16 


561 


2.14±.08 


513 


2.87±.ll 


562 


2.04 + .09 


514 


3.52 + .12 


563 


2.93±.ll 


515 


2.69±.10 1 


565 


2.79±.10 


516 


1.89±.08 


566 


3.05±.12 


517 


3.26±.12 


567 


4.31±.25 


518 


2.63±.ll 


568 


2.60ih.09 


519 


2.28 + .08 


569 


2.84±.ll 


520 


3.83±.10 


570 


1.82±.07 


521 


2.50±.09 


571 


2.04±.08 


522 


1.87±.07 


572 


2.33±.10 


523 


3.50±.13 


573 


3.79±.18 


524 


3.28+.12 ! 


574 


2.31±.ll 


525 


2.17±.10 


575 


2.35±.09 


526 


2.97±.ll 


576 


2.42±.ll 


527 


3.50±.12 


577 


3.24±.13 


528 


2.54±.10 


578 


3.30±.13 


529 


3.23±.ll 


j 579 


3.38±.13 


550 


3.90±.14 


580 


2.36±.10 


532 


3.72±.15 


581 


2.56±.10 


533 


2.97±.13 


582 


3.18±.17 


534 


3.19±.12 


584 


2.54+.10 


535 


3.28±.12 


585 


2.90±.12 


536 


2.58 + .09 


586 


3.14±.ll 


537 


2.87±.ll 


587 


3.04±.12 


538 


4.06±.15 


588 


3.04±.13 


539 


3.70±.15 


589 


2.64±.10 


540 


4.23±.16 


590 


2.94±.12 


541 


2.10±:.08 


591 


2.86±.ll 


542 


3.35±.13 


592 


3.21±.14 


543 


2.81±.10 


593 


2.41±.ll 


544 


4.20±.19 ! 


594 


2.27±.08 


545 


2.61±.10 


595 


2.36±.10 


546 


1.95±.07 


596 


2.83±.12 


547 


3.54±.14 


597 


3.11±.ll 


548 


2.91±.ll 


598 


2.91±.13 


549 


2.36±.09 


599 


3.03±.20 






600 


3.08±.23 


Unweighed 




1 




Mean 


3.00±.06 


1 


2.80±.05 



12 VV. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 195 

TABLE X. — Comparison of Means for the Six Flocks. 



Flock 


Standard Deviation 






First 
Year 


Second 
Year 


Third 
Year 


A 

B 

Difference 


3.53±.13 

3.36+.13 

+ .17±.18 


2.61±.08 

2.69±.07 

— .08±.10 


2.72±.05 

2.72±.07 

.00±.08 


C 
D 

Difference 


3.57±.13 

3.41±.10 

+ .16±.16 


2.62=t:.05 

2.73±:.12 

— .11±.13 




E 

F 1 
Difference 


3.00+.06 
2.80±,05 
+ .20+.08 







In no instance are the differences significant, with possibly 
an exception in the case of flocks E and, F in the pullet year. 
The fowls well fed while young began to lay at an earlier age 
than their poorly fed sisters, and as the author has already 
shown that the younger the bird at the time of laying the first 
egg the smaller the first few eggs that are laid will be* it would 
be natural to expect a slight increase in the standard deviation 
in flocks A, C, and E due to this factor. 



It is evident from the data submitted in Table X that the 
manner of feeding the chickens while young had no measurable 
influence on the standard deviation in the weight of the eggs 
laid by the mature females. 



The Standard Deviation in the Weight 
of Eggs as Influenced by the Season of the Year 

Do eggs fluctuate more from their mean weight at one sea- 
son of the year than at another? To answer this question the 
deviation has been calculated for all six flocks for the laying 
season of 1922-1923. This was the third year of laying for 
flocks A and B, the second year for flocks C and D, and the first 
year for flocks E and F. The results of this computation are 
shown in Table XL 



*Bul. 182, p. 7. W. Va. Agr'l Exp't Station, August, 1923. 



June, l!t2f)) 



DEVIATION IN WEKiHT OF EGGS 



IS 



4) 'I 

o : § 

2 i u 



o 



U] 






> 

0) 

Q 

H 

C 
« 

4^ 



X 

QQ 
< 



h 



>— lOOOOOOOOOOrH 

T-HTfcooococvieocococococo 



S M't~ -^ 00 O 00 t> lO «0 CO 00 CO t- 
M t>00^00Ot--^O'*t>rHC<l 

5 oacocio'— irHTHcvaoJcoin^o 

« 



_o t- c^j 00 M (M oj oi 00 Oi o oj «:> 
^oo<xiooa3C~oo^c<i«r>c^ 



bo 




c 1 








^ 




s ' 




Q 




TO 




ti 


" 


^ 


no 

e 


M 


« 




y 




1. t-OOrHt-t-COC^t-OOrHlO 

(J'-,>-I,-it-hOOOOOOt-I(M 

■^.Sl+l+i+l+i+l+l+i+l+l+i+i 

> t-^LOLCC<!a3cooo'sfc~C5i 
toioi-HOiOooooooi-ias' 

CO 00 ^ co' -^' CO ^ 00 CO 'q^' CO 






> bo 



io,-HOOOiocouocoooi-Hco 
tDio>OT-i«:>oocDiX)'-ioo 5i 
Oooooio-^cioooic-cooi g 

rtu^|oco6t-^t>«CTjIooco^'«:><»'2 

JJOii^LOiOiOLCLOUOLOlOlCiO'^ 



b. 



Id 



jjjjaii— icDcooo(NiuoOi<M-^oo rj 

J !OCOT-IOCOCD-^t~OOCOlOo 

e 2, '-' 1-1 CO t- 00 00 t- t~ LO CO «2- 

2W 





•B s 




h 








B -r 




rt > 








t/3 Q 


QQ 






TJ 


4^ 

bA «• 


B 


> bo 


< 


bW 




S«- 


jt 


.S 


u 


>► 






b 


•^rs 




. * 




S;j 








3 60 




2W 



uocorHiX'^cDcota^ooicoo 

(MtHi— lOOOoOOO'-l'"' 

+i +1 +i +1 +i +1 +i +1 +i +i +i +i 

T-lOLOCO'-IOOrHCOOO(MCO'-l 

coiHcococococococococo 



osi-Hcoait-oscoooasco^^ 
i-ii>ioom(M«Dmt-iooo^ 
cvicooo-'^'^aic-ocio-^'-^ 
o<j3ododt>iOTtiOTjicDt>CT3 



<fl!COCOCO>-HOiO?DCO'— '00<M 
C<1 00 00 05 t- 00 t- ^ '-' 



ojoococococococococococo 

o: c; c; G5 CTi oj ci CiOi Ci Oi o; 






>■■ be' 



^^ fc § <^ § .? ►^ < w O iz; 



14 



W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION 



(Bulletin 195 



If the results be disregarded where the number of eggs laid 
in a month was small, Table XI shows that there was but little 
difference in the standard deviation during the different months 
of the year. During May, the month of maximum egg produc- 
tion, the deviation was slightly smaller than earlier or later, but 
this difference is too small to bq significant except with flocks 
E and F. 

The deviations for flocks C and D average larger than for 
either flocks A and B or for flocks E and, F. The author is un- 
able to account for the greater variability in the weight of the 
eggs laid by these fowls. 

Correlation Betw^een the Number of Eggs Laid by 
a Bird and the Standard Deviation in the Weight of the Eggs 

Is there any connection between the number of eggs that a 
hen may lay in a season and the extent of their fluctuations in 
weight? To answer this question the correlations have been 
calculated and the results are presented in Table XII. 

TABLE XIL — The Mean Number of Eggs Laid per Bird, the 
Mean Standard Deviation in the Weight of Eggs, and 
the Correlation Between the Number of Eggs Laid and 
the Standard Deviation of Their Weight. 







First 


Second 


Third 






Flock 


Year 


Year 


Year 






[' Number of annual records 


28 1 


23 


23 




A 


j Mean number of eg-gs laid 


147.00 ±4.47 


151.70 ±3.65 


138.17 ±3 


.40 


Mean standard deviation 
. Coefficient of correlation 


3.53 ± .13 


2.61 ± .08 


2.72 ± 


.05 




+ .384± .119 


+ .035± .140 
21 


+ .052± 
21 


.140 




(' Number of annual records 


21 




B 


Mean number of eggs laid 


121.29 ±5.15 


150.05 ±2.97 


129.52 ±3.77 


Mean standard deviation 
.Coefficient of correlation 


3.37 ± .13 


2.69 ± .07 


2.73 ± 


.07 




+ .212± .134 


— .151± .137 


— .155± 


.137 




( Number of annual records 


19 1 


19 






C 


j Mean number of eggs laid 


140.00 ±4.58 1 


146.68 ±3.28 






1 Mean standard deviation 


3.57 ± .13 1 


2.62 ± .05 








L Coefficient of correlation 


+ .261± .144! 


+ .087± .054 
' 19 








r Number of annual records 


19 






D 


Mean number of eggs laid 


125.06 ±4.87 


142.21 ±4.36 






Mean standard deviation 


3.41 ± .10 1 


2.74 ± .12 








I Coefficient of correlation 


— .117± .1631 


+ .226± .144 








Number of annual records 
, Mean number of eggs laid 


47 








E 


155.75 ±2.34 








Mean standard deviation 


3.00 ± .06 1 










- Coefficient of correlation 


.000± .098! 










Number of annual records 
Mean number of eggs laid 


48 1 








p 


r^7.40 ±3.33 ! 










Mean standard deviation 
~ Coefficient of correlation 


2 80 ± .05 1 










'^^8± .0971 









June, 1925) 



DEVIATION IN WEIGHT OF EGGS 



Table XII shows that none of the coefficients of correla- 
tion are significant with the exception of Flock A for the first 
year, hence it would appear that there is little or no relation- 
ship between the number of eggs that a hen may lay and the 
standard deviation in the weight of the eggs when the standard 
deviation is based on the production for an entire year. 

Correlation Betv^reen the Standard Deviation in the 
Weight of the Eggs Laid byj the Same Fowl from Year to Year 

If a fowl lays eggs which have a relatively high or low 
standard deviation in weight, will this relatively high or low 
standard deviation persist during later years? To answer the 
question the coefficients of correlation have been calculated 
and the results are shown in Table XIII. 

TABLE XIIL — Coefficient of Correlation in the Standard De- 
viations in the Weight of Eggs During Different Years. 





■ 


Deviation Pullet Year 


Deviation Second Year 




Flock 


Subject; Deviation 


Subject; Deviation 






Second Year Relative 


Third Year Relative 


A 


r= 


+ .194±.135 


+ .360±.122 


B 


r= 


+ .195±.142 1 


+ .700±.075 


C 


r= 


+ .223±.147 1 




D 


r= 


+ .662+.087 1 





All of the coefficients are positive. Two of them are strong- 
ly significent. The results taken as a whole would seem to in- 
dicate that the degree of deviation tends to persist from year 
to year. On the other hand the wide variation in the magnitude 
of the coefficients indicates that the deviation may be affected 
by forces other than those which bring about the primary devia- 
tion. It seems probable that the deviation as measured is the re- 
sultant of various influences. Some of these may be inherent, 
others may be the effect of varying environmental conditions 
which affect not only the number of eggs but also, their weight. 



Inheritance 

Is the degree of deviation in egg weight an inheritable char- 
acteristic? The data available are too scanty to answ^er this 
question. Breeding experiments should be conducted selecting 
for high and low variability in egg weight. 



16 



W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION 
Abnormal Deviations 



(Bulletin 195 



Table XIV gives the record of bird 509 for her pullet year. 
During the first six months no unusual^ condition is evident, and 
the maximum frequency was in the 48.5 gram class. Later in 
the year the eggs became much heavier, and the maximum fre- 
quency was in the 64.5 gram class. The record possibly may in- 
dicate that this bird had two ovaries, one functioning during the 
first part of the season and the other later. 

TABLE XIV. — Frequency Chart Showing Distribution of Eggs 
During the Year, Dec. 1922-Nov. 1923, Laid by Bird 509, 
Deviation in Weight of Eggs, Mean Weight, and Stand- 
ard Deviation. 





Occ^fsaiJ 


Ja^(/9!3) 


F£a. 


rioH. 


Apr. 


May 


JUf^E. 


Jiji-r 


A<JO- 


S^P-r 


Oct 


/Vov. 


l^urtaeR 

or £6^5 


3 0.S 
31.5 
3i.S 

3 3.5 




























35^ 

37.3 

■ 3BJ 




























40.5 
41. S 
4i.S 
43.S 




1 

II 
1 






1 


II 














i 
1 
Z 

3 


4S.S 
■f-6.S 
47.S 
■4 a. J 




Hi 

II 


1 

UH III 
III 
II 


/ 

Hfll 

nil 

(HI 

II 


III 

II 
IW 

nil 
III 


III 

1 
IHII 
III 


1/ 

III 
II 

1 


II 
III 










13 
li 
20 

Z6 

....Li. 


S0.3 
S/.6 
62.S 
S3.S 






II 

1 


1 
1 


III 


1 


III 

IHI 

1 


1 

II 
1 

1 


/ 

/ 








10 

z 
9 

2 


5S.S 
56.S 
Sl.S 
5B.S 
.t9 5 














1 


1 










1 
1 


60.5 

6/. 6 
61,5 
6 3.3 
1^4.5 
















1 

1 


1 
1 
1 
III 


1 






1 

1 

z 
z 


6 5.5 
665 
6 7.3 
63.3 
















1 

1 


1 


1 






1 
1 


70.3 
7/.3 
7Z.5 
73.5 




'iGifT or £ 


wi 50.4t 


5 O/T/trfS. 
■,mt6.SI 


'— 








1 








1 


75.5 
76,3 

7 7.S 
7S.5 


















1 


1 






/ 
1 


OF £oot. 




If 


n 


ZO 


Zl 


n 


le 


IS 


II 


J 






136 



Table No. XV is the record for bird 583 during her pullet 
year. It is to be observed that the bird laid only 31 eggs, and 
that the standard deviation in their weight was 7.10 grams or 
about twice the normal. 



June. 1925) 



DEVIATION IN WEIGHT OF EGGS 



17 



TABLE XV. — Frequency Chart Showing Distribution of Eggs 
During the Year, Dec. 1922-Nov. 1923, Laid by Bird 583, 
Deviation in Weight of Eggs, Mean Weight, and Stand- 
ard Deviation. 





<*c (I9il) 


jAn {1913) 


Fca 


1 


Apr 


Mat 


J'VNM 


Ji/i.y 


/lu* 


5ipr. 


Oct. 


Nay. 


or £s.3 

/ 


3as 

31.3 
3Z.S 
33 S 
3 -4.5 




























3S.S 
36.S 
3ZS 
38.3 
3 9.3 






1 


1 










/ 








/ 

/ 

/ 


4 0.3 
4/..S 
42 5 
433 
44.5 






1 








1 


1 




/I 






3 


4SS 
46.S 
4Ti 






1 


1 

1 














/ 




1 

2 
/ 


48.5 
43. 5 






1 

1 


1 












1 


1 




3 


SI.5 
S2.5 
S3.S 
.?-«.5 






1 

1 


1, 

1 












III 

1 






6 

2 

/ 


533 
563 
3 7.3 
58.3 
















1 






1 




/ 
/ 


6as 

6I.S 
6 2.S 
<53.S 
64.3 






1 










1 










/ 
/ 


6S5 
66^S 
6 7.3 

. 693 




























70.3 

71.5 

i 7!.3 

\ 73.3 

74.5 




Ve,6HT Of 

9o Devifij 




13 6/JHMJ 
Ei»«7 7.10 


GRn^>. 


















1 7*5 
1 76.3 

! 7 7.3 

Non„n 




























<F £g«3J 






8 


a 






I 


3 


/ 


7 


3 




3/ 



The Standard Deviation in the 
Weight of Different Parts of Egga 

Possibly throwing some light on the causes for fluctuations 
in Q^gg weight it is interesting to determine whether different 
parts of an Qgg vary in weight uniformly or whether the fluctu- 
ations are mainly in some one portion. 

In bulletin No. 166 of this station the weight of the eggs laid 
by certain hens and the weight of the yolks of these eggs are 
reported. The yolks were separated by breaking the eggs into 
a colander which permitted the major portion of the white to 
drain away, then carefully transferring the unbroken yolk to a 
piece of filter paper where it was rolled about, by lifting the 
edges of the paper, so that the remainder of the white would be 
absorbed, then transferring to a dish and weighing quickly. 



18 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 195 

The records presented here pertain to the eggs laid by four 
birds during the months from March to July both inclusive dur- 
ing 1915 and 1916, the former year being the pullet year for all 
four fowls. 

Table XVI shows the mean weight of the eggs, the yolks,, 
and the white and shell, together with the standard deviations, 
and the coefficients of variation. 

Although somewhat foreign to the present study it is im- 
portant to observe that the increase in the size of the yolks for 
all four birds from the first to the second year was relatively 
much greater than the increase in the weight of the remaining 
portions of the eggs. Stated differently the percentage of the 
eggs that was yolk was greater the second year than the first. 
This may be one reason why pullet eggs are' generally found to- 
be unsuitable for hatching, not only the eggs being small, but 
the yolks being relatively small for the size of the eggs. 

Considering now the coefficients of variation it is seen that 
the variability in the weight of the yolks is slightly greater than 
the variability in the weight of the eggs or in the weight of the 
white and shell. It is difficult to understand why this should 
be, as the development of the yolk is a process extending over 
several days, while the secretion of the white and the forma- 
tion of the shell and shell membranes is a very much shorter 
process, and it would be logical to expect that the result of this 
shorter process would be the more variable provided that the 
fluctuations in the weight of the eggs and its parts are due to en- 
vironmental conditions. This result agrees, however, with that 
obtained by Jull* who found that "egg weight is the least vari- 
able; albumen weight slightly more variable than egg weight; 
yolk weight considerably more variable than albumen weight; 
and shell weight the most variable." 

What are the factors that bring about fluctuations in the 
weight of eggs? The data that has been presented in this pub- 
lication throws but little light on this general question. 

Factors Influencing the Weight of Eggs 

It will be of interest at this place to review briefly the fact- 
ors that have a pronounced and well authenticated effect upon, 
the weight of eggs. 



♦Poultry Science Vol. III. No. 3 (1924) 



June. 1!»25) 

C 
id 



w 

C 


.5 
*> 

Q 

no 
(d 

(d 



0) 

no 
C 
(d 



J3 



be 



DEVIATION IN WRIGHT 



OF EGGS 










+1 +1 


+ 1 




,-1 -fl 


-t 


^ 



19 



jG 




tD 








d) 




^ 






c 


vu 












*J 


(0 


(d 


C 


h 





(d 


*C 


> 


(d 


Um 


a 





S 


<n 





iM 


U 








1 


o 






N-< 


«^ 


> 


<1) 


X 







U 


UJ 




^ 




CQ 




< 




H 






20 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 195 

In the first place egg size is a breed characteristic ; at one 
extreme are the Bantams with their small eggs and at the other 
the Minorcas with their large eggs. The size of the eggs is also 
an individual characteristic that persists from year to year. In 
other words in the same breed certain birds habitually lay large 
eggs and other birds lay small eggs. 

The age of the fowl has an influence on the weight of the 
eggs. The mean weight of the eggs laid during the second year 
of production in this experiment was eleven per cent greater 
than during the first year, and the increase from the second to 
the third year was two per cent. 

Egg weight is intimately associated with body weight. As 
the pullet becomes heavier the eggs become heavier, and even 
in the case of the mature females the heaviest eggs are gener- 
ally laid in winter or early spring when the hens are heaviest. 
There also seems to be a relationship between the mean weight 
of a bird and the mean weight of the eggs laid by that bird. 

Table XVII shows the correlation between the mean weight 
of the birds and the mean weight of the eggs laid by these birds 
based on the records of the six flocks. The mean weight of the 
birds was based on monthly weighings throughout each year 
for each bird. 

TABLE XVII. — Correlation Between the Mean Body Weight of 
the Birds and the Mean Weight of the Eggs Laid by the 
Same Birds.'" 



! 
Fiock 


Year Correlation 


ACE 
B D F 
A C 
B D 
A 
B 


First r = + .418±.059 
First '"' r -= + .164±.070 
Second | r = + .433+.084 
Second | r =- + .528±.077 
Third r = + .328±.125 
Third r ^ + .553±.102 



In every case the coefficient is positive and in most cases, 
strongly significant, and shows that the heavier birds in these 
flocks laid, in general, the heavier eggs. 

// this result should be found to agree with the results ob- 
tained with other strains and breeds it would enable a breeder to 
modify quickly the size of the eggs laid by his flock so as to meet 
his market requirements. 



*Table XVII is based on 3,636 body weights and 43,809 egg weights. 



June, 1!»25) DEVIATION IN WEIGHT OF EGGS 21 

The weight of the eggs laid by a bird depends to a certain 
extent upon the rate of production. The author has shown in 
bulletin No. 182 of this station that the more eggs laid by a flock 
of fowls during any particular month the smaller are the eggs 
for that month, and vice versa. On the other hand a bird that is 
a prolific layer is as apt to lay as heavy eggs as a bird that is a 
poor layer. This is shown by Table XVIII. 

TABLE XVIII. — Correlation Between the Number of Eggs Laid 
by a FoAvI in a Year's Time and the Mean Weight of 
the Eggs. 



Flock 



Correlation 



ACE I First | r = — .225±.068 

B D F I First I r = + .177±.069 

A C I Second I r = + .260±.097 

B D I Second | r = — .021=t.l07 

A I Third | r = + .015±.140 

B I Third | r = — .287±:.135 



Three of the coefficients are positive and three are nega- 
tive, and none of them, with the exception of A C E for the first 
year, are significant. Hence we may conclude that the number 
of eggs that a hen may lay has no connection with their average 
size. The characters, number of eggs, and egg size are separate 
and distinct. 

The ration has an influence upon the size of the egg. In 
bulletin 145 of this station the author has shown that a ration 
that is too scanty in amount, or one which is improperly balanced 
has a tendency to reduce the size of the eggs. 

The factors enumerated above as affecting the weight of 
eggs throw but little light on the reason for the fluctuation in 
the weight of eggs as it takes place from day to day. In bulle- 
tin No. 166 of this station it has been shown that if a hen lays 
for several days in succession and then misses for a day or 
more, the first egg of the series is generally the heaviest and 
that there is a fairly regular and gradual decrease in the weight 
of the eggs toward the end of the series, the last egg being the 
smallest. This result can be explained by the assumption that 
the formation of egg substance takes place at a fairly uniform 
and regular rate during the period when the bird is in produc- 
tion. Now if the normal or natural weight of the egg laid by a 



22 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 195 

bird is greater than the amount of egg substance that can be 
elaborated by the bird in twenty-four hours then one or more 
of three things may happen. First the size or weight of the 
eggs may become smaller from day to day. There is an abund- 
ance of data to show that this takes place normally with most 
fowls. Secondly, the eggs may be laid later and later each day, 
the bird laying the first egg of the series' say at 9 o'clock in the 
morning, the second egg at 10 o'clock the next day and. so on, 
later and later, until a day is skipped entirely. That this is a 
matter of common occurrence is known to all who trap-nest 
fowls. Thirdly, the bird may cease laying for a day or more 
until she catches up with her daily program of production. 

Based on this conception of the reason for the usual fluctu- 
ations in egg weight it appears probable that the smaller the 
decrease in the weight of the eggs laid by a certain bird .from 
day to day, the better able that bird is to continue tolay without 
interruption. From this standpoint the standard deviation in the 
weight of eggs should be negatively correlated with the annual 
production, when this deviation is based on the weight of the 
eggs laid during such a short period of time that it is not masked 
by extraneous influences. 

If the fluctuations in egg weight from day to day are asso- 
ciated with the number of eggs or the fecundity of the bird it 
should be possible to work out a method for predicting the pro- 
ductive capacity by a study of these fluctuations, and it is the 
purpose of the author to reexamine the data on which this bul- 
letin is based with this end in view. 

A decrease in egg weight from day to day, laying later and 
later each day, and occasionally missing one or more days when 
no egg is laid are the results of the inability of the birds to build 
up enough egg substance in twenty-four hours for the full sized 
daily egg. From this standpoint anything which will decrease 
the variability in egg weight should increase the number of eggs 
which may be laid, and it would appear that further study of 
the standard deviation in the weight of eggs may be of great 
value when carried on in connection with investigations in feed- 
ing and breeding fowls for increased production. 



HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 




JUNE 99 

|Bo.„a.To.P>.3s^N,KHESTER,